Almost there...

Saturday, January 22, 2005

32 Years of Legal Abortion

And on the 32nd anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, I offer this charming article. That's right, the woman once known as "Jane Roe" has asked the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 32 years ago. Okie dokie then. And what's more, there's a judge in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who criticized the abortion ruling and said "new medical evidence may well show undue harm to a mother and her fetus." Um? Which medical evidence was that? I mean, the point of an abortion is to necessarily harm the fetus. As for harm to the mother, it's still a heck of a lot safer than having a baby. According to Consumer Reports, "In the U.S., the fatality risk with mifepristone is slightly less than 1 per 100,000 cases, compared with 0.1 per 100,000 for surgical abortion at 8 weeks or less. Pregnancy itself carries a fatality risk of 11.8 per 100,000." So, it's somewhere on the order of 100 times more dangerous to have a baby than to have an abortion. And yes, it's safest to not get pregnant in the first place, but if we're talking about the yes/no of delivering a baby or not, then sorry, it's not unduely harmful to have an abortion. Get real. If you're going to cite evidence, the cite it, and be ready to back it up, because the truth will come out.

Please let us get through the next four years with abortion kept safe and legal. Why on earth would you force someone to have a child they didn't want? That's just asking for a child to be unloved and unwanted, and the kids know when they are resented. Anyway, happy anniversary America.


  • There's a march in SF this weekend (like today or tommorrow) for pro choice. (actually there's two marches, one for each side).

    By Blogger Chris S, at 1:57 PM  

  • Do you realize how awful the sentiment in that last paragraph is? Have an unwanted baby? Give it up for adoption then. Respectfully, destroying it while still in the womb should not be the answer!

    By Blogger Kevin, at 4:13 PM  

  • Yes, some do give them up for adoption. And some are okay with that. But others feel bad about/couldn't handle having someone else raise their baby. And they keep the baby. And then proceed to blame the child for tying them down or ruining their lives, sometimes overtly, sometimes never saying it out loud. I've known several people who came from that sort of reality, and it's terrible how they're made to feel. I'd sooner have a collection of cells ended before consciousness rather than have a human raised to endure that sort of emotional baggage.

    On the other hand, too often women who give up children for adoption are villified in our society with comments like "How could you do that?" and "Didn't you love your child?" and so on. We really need to get our heads screwed on straight about that as well before pushing women into adoption over abortion. Truly, I've seen the range of experiences, from use of Plan B, to herbal abortion, to mifeprestone, to surgical abortion, to happy adoption, to unsatisfactory adoption, to keeping a child from an unplanned pregnancy and things being okay, to keeping a child from an unplanned pregnancy and things being really bad, to children being raised by their grandparents, and so on. What it all boils down to is that carrying a child to term is a medical decision. It is a high risk activity with huge consequences and responsibilities as the result. No one should be told by the state what choice they should make. No one*.

    *Though I do sometimes wish that you had to pass some sort of validation test before having a child. It's just too darned easy to have a baby, and there are so many painfully unqualified/unprepared parents. Rick's sister is a prime example. 3 drug addicted babies that by the end were removed from her care by the state at birth. They're being raised by Rick's mom (his three sister-neices), one with major mental retardation, another who lacks adult teeth as a drug side effect. Yet she has a fourth she is raising now. It's a shame really.

    By Blogger Ammy, at 4:51 PM  

  • It's not a perfect world, that's for sure, but destroying a life because it would be unloved or have problems, or because the parent doesn't want to deal with the emotional baggage or responsibilities, is just wrong. I'm not a religious fanatic, in fact I'm not even religious. But I recognize this as being the wrong thing to do in many cases.

    By Blogger Kevin, at 8:49 AM  

  • Well, you can have that opinion, but I think it's up to the person who has to carry that collection of cells into personhood to decide. It's not a matter of right or wrong. It's a matter of personal health choices. If I didn't want the baby, would I want the added risk to my health of carrying the unwanted fetus to term? Probably not. I don't want to have to worry about pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, joint loosening, and so on if it's not for the love of the child to be. Women tolerate these abuses and risks to their bodies when the payoff at the end is a wonderful new life. If they don't have that to look forward to, then why? It's not like there aren't enough humans on earth. And it's not like 30-60% of pregnancies don't end in self-abortion (miscarriage) anyway.

    By Blogger Ammy, at 3:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home